Thursday, February 10, 2011

A Political Debate

This post has nothing to do with Oil, Nat Gas, Egypt, or the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

I am reposting a discussion I recently had with some friends of a friend on FaceBook. My friend is a "progressive", as are her friends. I believe that all concerned live on Cape Cod, Mass., a bastion of progressive and Gay populations.

I am very much am seeking comment on my position on the ethical question I posed... and I think the conversation is very, very telling... perhaps you will, too. It is somewhat long and involved, but my bet is thinking people here will find it worth their time.


My friend posted on FaceBook:

"2/10th of the taxes I pay go towards abortions of rape victims. 53 % of my taxes go towards killing and maiming people that are out of the womb. I would rather 53 % of my tax money go towards helping people raise and educate our children and I will happily keep funding abortions for victims of the violent physical and psychological crime of rape."

The following is the debate that followed:

First person:

"Politicians want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers"-George Carlin

Second Person:

Rachel Maddow was talking about this tonight...the fact that the "small, non invasive government" crowd a la the Republifascitsteabaggers want to use the government to control what a a woman does with her body is pretty revealing about what their real agenda is.


Me thinks these do not equate... and Second Person, the "her body" argument? Soooooo before DNA science... just check the DNA.... it AIN'T her body... and Maddow? Brilliant, charismatic, and eloquent... and deeply, deeply troubled.

Second Person:

Sorry Greg, not buying the whole argument of it's not her body but, that wasn't the point I was trying to make...I was pointing out that the teabaggers are FINE with expanding government and government control as long as it's for what they want. Historical fact: Since Reagan Government has grown more under every Republican administration than under any democratic administration.


Steve: Can you define that claim of growth for me? Data please.
And you don't have to buy anything... simply pointing out the science... the DNA does not match, ergo in ain't her body, its somebody else's.

Not that it matters... I will share with you some accurate demographic data: The Progressive movement is done; you can stick a fork in it. People tend to grow into much the same as the environment they come from... pro-abortion folks have fewer babies to leave a political legacy with than pro life people

2nd Person

I'll dig the data up and again, the point isn't about the discussion of when life begins, it's about using government assets when it's convenient but decrying their use when it doesn't suit


In essence, or in the final analysis, the Progressives demolished themselves and are quickly joining the Shakers in the "interesting but extinct" category

I am a Libertarian! We don't do any of that stuff! We also don't BS ourselves...
2nd Person:, so this is the right wing's final solution? let me poke a hole in your reality there Greg...I was raised by VERY conservative, right wing parents...I'm a SCREAMING liberal now...must be that whole separate genetic material thing you were mentioning...

so, do you like Rand Paul? Just curious cuz he claims to be a libertarian, but he's perfectly willing to use government intervention when it suits him


Steve.... that's what's called a "hasty conclusion". Remember the famous lefty that, after Nixon's election said "I don't understand it. Everybody I know voted for McGovern".

Steve: And your Conservative family? Most Gay men are Progressives. Half of them, unscientifically, come from non-progressive families

2nd Person:

btw, on what medical basis are you making the assumption that she doesn't have the right to choose what to do with that extra mass?


i didn't say she didn't have the "right". I said it was not her body

And in short order, there won't be many people of her stripe left

2nd Person:

hmmm so, you are OK with abortion?


Not at all. But I am not willing to use government thugs to enforce my position

I feel the same about drugs, prostitution....

2nd Person:

ah, so you don't support the idea of the goverment dictating what a woman can do with her body


Not even a little bit. What's that have to do with the ethics of abortion?

Politicizing acts hasn't been that effective.... that does not make them particularly positive for either the individual or society.

But the larger point is this: Darwinism! If one group practices abortion, and another does not... it won't take long for one to breed the other out of existence.

The 54 million or so abortions since Roe v Wade have DOOMED your side of the aisle. There just aren't enough Gay people born to non-abortion populations to make up for the population loss via abortion

Let's take a demographic example... say the Supreme Court of the U.S. 5 conservative Justices have 18 children. The 4 Liberals? TOgether have just 2. See a pattern here?

Well, it appears you have lost interest in this... too bad, just getting interesting. I stand corrected: Justice Bryer has 3 children, not 2.

New Guy, 3rd Person:

I'm confused: when did scientists discover the ideology gene? I missed that discovery. Is it a dominant or recessive gene? Okay, I'm being flip, but i don't see how we can use science to demonstrate that conservatives breed conservatives and liberals breed liberals.


Tom: No need to be flip... I enjoy a proper co-examination of the facts with a fellow thinking person... though I do thoroughly reject debating anything with "true believers"...

My assertion is simple: The Liberal Birth Dirth/Baby Bust whatever term of art you prefer is really not up for debate... you can use google as well as I.

Which groups have the highest birth rates? Amish, Orthodox Jews, Observant Catholics, Observant Muslims come to mind... groups highly uncorrelated with progressive political thought...

And the lowest birth rates? Members of the Board of NOW, Liberal Supreme Court Justices (and members of Congress and Senate), Gays.

The 55 million abortions since Roe V Wade has decimated the demographics of groups whose members accept abortion as a viable option.

Its just math Tom. I assert that Its the reason Progressives DESPERATELY need to addict certain segments of society to dependency on social programs as a means of controlling their vote - on their own the progressives simply don't have the votes... and in fact will not have them again in my lifetime... The fastest growing minority groups? Hispanics and Asians... two groups not highly correlated to progressive policies.

Now I think you asserted that there is no correlation between parent/child political/religious beliefs? If so, I would streneously disagree... but feel free to show me data showing that the majority of children to do not evolve into the same socio/economic/political/r

eligious groups as their parents and families.

I reject the politicization of abortion... what does that have to do with the ETHICS of abortion? In the end DNA wins all wars... those who breed, succeed.

It is difficult to even have a conversation about these issues as it seems that people have internalized them and that they are no longer up for debate... at such times, violence is substituted for politics... something to be avoided, if I may make use of understatement.

And just because I make an assertion that is an anathema to someone does not make my assertion incorrect. Likewise, just because I am ugly and my mother dresses me funny doesn't mean I am not intelligent. Yet is seems TO ME that the response from progressives when challenged on the issues is Ad Hominem attacks and eye rolling gestures.

My assertion: the 55 million abortions since Roe V Wade have harmed the demographics of the progressives infinitely more than their opponents.

Feel free to counter. I would enjoy the discussion.

3rd Person:

What i asserted is that there is no DNA-based scientific equivalence between the parent-child religious beliefs. Your point the separation between the existence of the fetus and its mother is rooted in DNA evidence. It sounded like the same was being applied to population. My mistake if that's not the case; your argument is more about the basic facts of numbers, not genetics. I will accept your numbers regarding the population growths, though I am dubious about the Amish (they've been driven out of Lancaster County, that's for sure), and I think that with certain populations you mention it's a matter of picking and choosing in terms of political views. Hispanics, as Catholics, may be opposed to abortion, but ask them about Arizona's new laws and it's hard to call them conservative. And even again, Hispanics in one part of the country are more conservative than others broadly speaking. The same might hold of Muslims as well: conservative on abortion but not on the PATRIOT act. (Broad statements here, yes.)

Birth rates are also connected to education and income levels, not just political views.

Politics and ethics of abortion have always been intertwined. Laws forbidding abortion were passed by people not born with wombs and never faced with the implications of pregnancy. Institutions had to make statements on the issue based often on their values but also on ideology. Those who sought legal abortion recognized that women and girls were dying because they did not have legal access to abortion -- either because they tried unsafe procedures or because they committed suicide in despair. Once Roe v. Wade was passed, the politics of abortion went into full swing. It often seems like the only question that matters to Senators during Supreme Court confirmation hearings is, "where are you on Roe v. Wade"? Science is not immune to the political issues.

I do agree that too often we go into personalized attacks in public discourse -- though again, even the acknowledgment of this, I can explain the kind of shoutfests that exists based on my understanding of broadcast media history of the last forty years and my ideological viewpoints. I will be fair and say that you've given me something to chew over.

I do think that SECOND PERSON was making a separate point that probably does not apply to your ideas and views, exactly: what we deem as acceptable government spending is often driven by ideology. Conservatives don't want government to regulate business but they are fine with censorship. Conservatives don't want to fund abortion but bombing Iraqi citizens is okay, as is the death penalty. McGovern's point was general, of course: the Catholic Church opposes both the death penalty and abortion -- and one of JP II's last public statements as Pope was to condemn the invasion of Iraq. Liberals are fine with regulating guns but not fine with restriction access to abortion or teaching Creationism in public schools. and once again, facts are put aside and ideology reins.


Tom: I certainly was NOT making any connection between DNA and political beliefs... only that the fetus is not the woman's body, just check the DNA... take that for what you will.

The Amish represent a population of over 250,000 individuals, and are spread far and wide... this from 5,000 individuals 1 century ago... I have written extensively on the Amish at my blog. The explosion ins population of certain orthodox or fundamentalist religious groups is hardly up for debate. BTW, I am as secular as one could possibly be...

No question that hispanics are not of one mindset on the ideological spectrum... but there is clearly but one reason why they have surpassed blacks as the most numerous ethnic minority... and that is certainly not abortion.

I was not debating Roe v Wade. I refuse to politicize abortion. Some people believe that abortion is a legitimate option... I think they are out of their freaking minds, are self-absorbed, lack maturity and vision, and lack something deep within their character - and still I would not even consider the use government thugs on them. In this matter I am a "true believer"... and there is no point in debating a true believer....

"Laws are passed by people without a womb"... Laws are passed by adults that harm children to no end... medicare, social security, war, abortion... I find your assertion to be rooted in your association with those sharing your belief system - and you should find the same thing true in me.

My great grandmother was a well known radical in the woman's suffrage movement in the New York in the early part of the 20th century, and worked as a detective for then Chief of Police Theodore Roosevelt... she then lectured against the Feminist movement, saying they had overstepped their raison d'etre. every special interest group outlives its purpose and usefulness, and then begins to function only to perpetuate its existence...

I maintain my assertion: Progressives will join Shakers in the "interesting but extinct" group. Abortion and Gay Marriage are simply not issues that can sustain a special interest group for long. People die, and will straight couples will continue to create Gay offspring, those that abort will not create Progressive offspring.


Tom: Sorry I just read your next comment.

The "conservatives" are just as dead as the progressives. I publish a well followed blog here:


There MILLIONS of folks in my camp - reject abortion, death penalty, Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as SS/Medicare/Medicaid?Foods

tamps/military spending... please don't lump us all in with the Social Control Conservatives (and I won't lump you in with the social control Liberals).

I don't know your background, but if you have any training in math I rest all of my assertions for the above on "e"

otherwise known as (1 +1/n) to the n.... you likely know it as the equation that governs compound interest.

Here's a link:


4th Person:

It would be nice if most tax money went to education.

5th Person:

mmhmm – 4th Person-- I hope you might consider spreading the word about the screening of Consuming Kids-- Free at Willy's Eastham at 7 Pm --
discussion to follow. If you do consider-- plz send me yr email so I can send you a flyer.


This has been a substantive thread... still, given the makeup of Diana's friend's list, I had hoped for more commentary and rational discussion. It seems that once the politicization of abortion is abandoned and the issue has to stand or fall on the ethics, it falls, and the progressive argument fails, utterly.

I look forward to a counter to that assertion, rather than a one liner about budgets that may or may not be accurate.

And with the unsupportable ethics of the issue, the balance of the progressive position collapses utterly.

This would be an excellent time for progressives to evolve to that higher state of Libertariansim!

I would also assert that the Right to Life movement has the progressive movement in the palm of its hands... and does not realize it. If that movement were to abandon the political enforcement of their core belief, and use the proper tool - ethics - the progressives would be immediately removed from nearly all political discussion.

Think about it: Once the "right" to abortion is no longer contested... how does the progressive movement respond to the ethics charge? That abortion is somehow a higher minded calling, like feeding the hungry? I am trying to remain composed... but it is amusing to think about...

Any thinking people on the progressive side wish to comment? I am ALL EARS.

And, please, let us remain germane to the discussion... this is usually the point where one hears "Oh, yea? Well, what about Iraq?" We are not discussing Iraq, though you would find me in complete agreement on that issue... or the death penalty, anther issue you would find me to completely oppose on ethical grounds.


I have not heard back from anyone... I will post any further discussion.


Dextred1 said...

Sounds like most of my debates with the left. The problem is they think that freedom is sex with whoever and wherever, doing drugs and killing babies. These things seem like freedom in the most base, non-cognitive sense, letting emotions pretend to be thoughts. They leave the higher Ideas of self reliance, checks and balances, justice by reparation, free speech, property rights, freedom of association, the right to contract, etc off the radar because they can only come to fruition from the virtues of honesty, responsibility and truth. To inform them of such things as DNA, morals/ethics, demographics, mathematical limitations, etc is a path to your own futility.

Anonymous said...

There is an economic aspect to the abortion topic that many seem to leave out when discussing the progressives tendency to support it.

Wellfare, medicaid, and food stamp programs not to mention education systems etc are all impacted by abortion both in the short term and the long term.

Not arguing in favor just commenting on something I hear all the time. The old are you going to take care of them argument.


Dextred1 said...

This is just one example of the destruction of their ideas. Let’s look at sex. In the left's view this is just pleasure and should not be restricted, but in reality sex is not just to reward your own hedonism but the perpetuate humankind, this involves civic duties such as voting, serve in public office, etc so you can raise children that will follow and create what we call civilized humanity. In order to do this you have a duty to not promote or participate in activities that destroy personal or community life (drugs, alcohol, theft, corruption of public office etc), duty to be temperate, a duty to economically self sufficient to pay for the upbringing of children. These duties all result from the fact that parents and elders have a duty to protect, teach, feed clothe and provide shelter for children. This involve the duty to uphold and protect moral uprightness to create children with character that is free from corruption and yes of course to enjoy the relationship that only sex can provide with your spouse, but is not limited to only the action of screwing in our modern colloquialism. Though this all flows from most basic of human nature that being sex, sex is not just a end in itself. If you don’t think so wait till you have a daughter, I already am thinking of ways to protect her :) haha

Greg T. Jeffers said...

I think the big thing I take away from these debates is just how FLAT these people fall when I concede that I will not politicize the issue and ask them to defend the actual action of an abortion ethically.

In each instance I am met with DEAFENING silence.

Anonymous said...

One point you miss in attempting to turn the abortion issue into the conventional right/left duality is that of the 55 million women who had abortions, probably no more than 5% have any political view or ideological consciousness whatsoever. And probably only barely formed ethical views.
I think that most of them have been of low economic and sociological status. Most of the rich girls get the pill and make the boyfriends or husbands use condoms.
Taboo and ignorance about sex and economics will keep abortion around.
Google herbal abortifacient and you will see the history. It's been around a long time and it ain't going away.
Same for teh gays. If your logic about family transmission of these things was accurate, there would be no gays...they rarely have children.
And ethics? I propose you go to your local WalMart on a Saturday afternoon and see if you can get a good discussion of ethics going at the checkout counter...or your local high school or even your local big box church. Or, Heaven forbid, Wall Street.
Rational Liberal

Greg T. Jeffers said...

Rat Lib:

You are making assertions using assumptions. I believe your assumptions are completely wrong... and I believe that you would NEED to believe those assumptions, because without them your assertions have little to stand on.

Greg T. Jeffers said...

And gays? Was my dialogue that hard to follow?

I said that gays come from straight homes by necessity AND they would come disproportionally from non-abortionist homes, simply because those favoring abortions will have fewer children.

AND that the numbers of Gays would be insufficient to carry the "progressive" movement.

And please... stick around. For the rest of our lives the progressives are not competitive for Congressional and Gubernatorial offices. I did not say that they will not win some, just will not be competitve as a majority under any circumstances.

Greg T. Jeffers said...

FRom my post:

"I maintain my assertion: Progressives will join Shakers in the "interesting but extinct" group. Abortion and Gay Marriage are simply not issues that can sustain a special interest group for long. People die, and will straight couples will continue to create Gay offspring, those that abort will not create Progressive offspring."

Greg T. Jeffers said...

My other assertion:

"I would also assert that the Right to Life movement has the progressive movement in the palm of its hands... and does not realize it. If that movement were to abandon the political enforcement of their core belief, and use the proper tool - ethics - the progressives would be immediately removed from nearly all political discussion."

Feel free to tell me how the progressives will defend the ethics of having an abortion.

Anonymous said...


Children do (or should) receive the major part of their moral and ethical education from their parents. They also are heavily influenced by the media and schools. The universities and schools are packed to the gills with progressives that push their agenda mercilessly. There are many influences outside the family that impact our political leanings. So, no, not all children of conservatives remain conservative, or vice versa. We all think and come to our own conclusions, or I hope so.

As far as income goes, I don't believe that a low income makes one stupid. I absolutely believe that most children born to single mothers are not accidents, and most aborted babies are aborted because the mother uses abortion as birth control. It isn't a matter of socio-economic status, it is a matter of ethics and morality in the larger sense. As I watch those in my extended family succeed of fail in life to varying degrees, it is pretty apparent that economic failure is the result of bad decisions, not the other way round. Most of our problems are self-inflicted.

My niece is a perfect example. She doesn't like the pill. She's had 8 abortions and two children that she doesn't take care of. Mom and dad both pull 6 figures and are both very liberal. No economic or intelligence deficit there, but there is a huge moral deficit.

To Dex's and Greg's point, the progressive view of "freedom" is largely license to misbehave and not suffer the consequences. Without the legal issue to hide behind, it is very difficult to defend abortion, or much else of an agenda that rewards poor social and ethical behavior.


Coal Guy

Greg T. Jeffers said...

Coal Guy:

Thank you... now if I could only convince my Pro_Life brethren that it is WE who are helping abortions happen... and whenever we are ready, we can cut abortions in the U.S. dramatically.

We are pushing the wrong button.

PioneerPreppy said...

That is one hell of a counter to the "her body" argument Greg.

The one thing that bothers me about the whole nurture over nature aspect of political ideology is that the progressive platform has such a control over the indoctrination feature (Ie: Schools). Most liberal progressives I know came from conservative families. I know we can see the decline of snobby white progressives as their party becomes more and more the Hispanic party every year, but the White progressives seem to be doing a good job indoctrinating new members just the same.

Greg T. Jeffers said...

The bizarre thing is the deafening silence... I posted something about the silence, and still no takers...

too busy rolling their eyes and saying "he's soooooo stupid."

kathy said...

Progressives and liberals probably get pregnant (unintentionally) at pretty similar rates. The access to abortion is much easier when one is well-to-do enough to pay for a private doctor who does a D&C for heavy periods (cough-cough)rather than needing to rely on clinics. I think family size has much more to do with affluence than politcal beliefs. Rich people nearly always have smaller families than poor people. Again, I base this on my years working in the field. By your reasoning, poor people would be running the world and we all know that's not true. Here's what is true.
Woman will always have abortions based on situation rather than ideology. The true ideologues get steralized. Abortions are too painful and messy to be bothered with when other, better options exists. The next truth is that, as services are cut, woman will be more likely to terminate pregnancies that will not be supported by welfare. The final truth is that reduced services will cause more people to terminate the pregnancies when the fetus has clear problems. We adopted a little girl with a congenital syndrome. She has done really well with tremendous services and medical care. There is no way I would have adopted her without the support as I would not have signed up for the heart-break of watching her die for lack of appropriate care. Granted, this is not exactly the same as having an abortion but there is a similarity in my thought. Suppose I was a 45 year-old woman who found herself pregnant with a Down's Syndrome child. Might I be more likely to consider terminating the pregnancy if I knew I could not provide this precious child with a good education and medical care as well as care for the time when I died and my child was left behind. I for would think about it, having seen what life is like for kids who don't get what they need early on. In fact, our decision to adopt a child with severe special needs was based on our ability to meet her needs in a state with excellent services for needy kids. I applaud your stance, Greg. I want every kid to be born into a world where they are cherished. I want every pregnancy to reach term. But that is not the way the world works. What is your solutions for unwanted pregnancies? I don't ask this to be flip. I really want to know. Do you have any ideas for what we will do with our elderly, our ill, our discards? It is not enough to have a moral stand without a plan. My plan is to make sure my own faith-based community recognizes its responsibility to the less fortunate. My DH volunteers at the food pantry and with the elder population. I continue to work with at-risk children and their families and to teach classes in cooking and food preservation to low income families. What do you do.

kathy said...

I meant that as a collect "you", not a confrontational "you". You, me, all of us. And I do not think that empathy will be bred out of us. I sometimes think tht you see only the negatives of the progressives and not the positive side which has done much to alleviate the suffering of many with no other voice.
BTW-among my progressive friends I am heard as the conservative voice. Is there no home for me?

Greg T. Jeffers said...


I want to say this gently... but what voice did the progressives give to who? I view them as a mirror image of the "Right", or RINO's... hypocrites that had ulterior motives and that were only too willing lie, cheat, manipulate, use force... to achieve their real objectives, WHATEVER they were.

I am suggesting that drugs, abortion, prostitution ARE personal choices that government force has NO place in. That does not mean that these are admirable, desirable, ethical, meaningful... expressions of the human spirit and good people - like you and I and the others commenting here - would be better at combating these ills using societal solutions, i.e., social norms, peer pressure, shame, shunning rather than debating whether we should put women and doctors in prison (or drug users or hookers).

Greg T. Jeffers said...

Because it is as plain as day that these are not ethical expressions of the human spirit.

PioneerPreppy said...

Ya know Kathy the problem with progressives is not that they wish to help the helpless or disadvantaged it is that typically their version of helping is based on what is best for their particular situation or location. Be that location in life or geographically. They then tend to try and force that version on everyone else.

You can't enforce New York style gun control, or minority employment legislation in White Boy Montana. And there is no reason you should even try.

In almost every case anything progressives do ends up simply switching the victim of whatever "social crime" they champion from one group to another group. This is not justice nor is it moral.

This is assuming their intentions are pure as well. SO very often alot of progressive social engineering really comes across as nothing more than a hidden power or advantage grab.

kathy said...

PP: I have to laugh at "power grab". We have clearly hung around different social engineering places. There is little power to grab teaching a 4YO how to brush her teeth in a Head Start program or delivering meals at the food pantry or puzzles to the elderly housing project up the street. Greg: I suspect you and I are climbing the same mountain, just using a different path.I don't see shunning or shame working either. The ills of the world are always with us. I hope to lead by example and heal with compassion. Those methods probably fail as often as not but, for me, it's better to lose than quit trying. I appreciate the discourse here. It never fails to make me think about the world and my place in it in novel ways. Thank you.

PioneerPreppy said...


How about when that four year old is used as the poster child for community reinvestment legislation that really benefits a specific gender or race?

I think you get the idea.

Perhaps raising a 4% tax to help disabled children go to school seems a small price to pay. Yet how many non-disabled children will have to quit or never start school because of that 4% extra their parents paid?

All you have done is switch the victim from one group to another.

kathy said...

A poster child? Because she learned to brush her teeth? Well, there are worse things than good teeth. I'll plead guilty. How many quit or can't go to school because my kid got the speech therapy that madde it possible for her to keep up with her peers? I don't know but I would guess none. Come on PP. Cut me some slack. Not every good thing people do is with the goal of putting forth an agenda. I like kids and I think I should do the best I can for the ones who don't have anybody else to do for them.

Anonymous said...

I think it is a good idea, discouraging bad behavior is never a bad idea and they really don’t have a leg to stand on. At the very least a good strong moral argument would force women to confront what they are really doing-before they do it. Most don’t think about it until much later when they are ate up with regret. I don’t know of any one that has been put on suicide watch because they are ate up with remorse from NOT having an abortion; while I know of quite a few that have been suicidal, and occasionally managed to commit suicide, because of regret about their abortion. Abortion to protect mental health my a$$!

I still think it should be a crime though, perhaps not one we devote a lot of resources to but abortionists should be shut down when they become know. After all; protecting the weak is the function of the state. There is a real victim who suffers an unjust death. Abortion fails the no harm no foul test.


Anonymous said...

You are definitely right about these issues being internalized to the point that it is all but impossible to have a debate about. I was Channel surfing and caught part of the Rachel Maddow show, it was so ridiculous it was hard to watch. The same lame point being hammered over and over as if repetitiveness somehow added weight to the argument. I probably watched more TV the last two weeks, during the blizzards, than the previous two years and it was deeply troubling. Has it always been this bad? One thing that really stood out was how many people said “I believe...” instead of “I think...”; and they weren’t being flippant or facetious; they meant it. If you disagree you’re a heretic. Even worse this seemed to come from all points of view, not just one set of radicals. Basically the whole country has been radicalized into opposing camps.


Anonymous said...

Rational Lib,

Homosexuality, abortion and birth control is nothing new. The Romans uses a piece of sheep’s or pig’s intestine with a not in the end of it. Gibbon attributed “The horrid practice, so familiar to the ancients, of exposing or murdering their new-born infants” to crushing taxation. However it has been more prevalent at some times and less in others. Livy lamented that pretty slave boys were fetching one hundred times the price of a plowman on the open market, and what it said about then contemporary society. What they all have in common is a marked decline in morality that is a sure sign of a civilization in decline.


PioneerPreppy said...

Well Kathy anytime someone advocates more spending or taxation they have an agenda, for good or sometimes for bad.

Also every action has the proverbial reaction so anytime you take even a small percentage of income from one group someone else has to do without. It is really that simple. When we transfer wealth or opportunity by force then those are taken away from some individual and given to another. It is easy to say it didn't effect anyone looking at it as a whole but someone did get hurt by it.

Greg T. Jeffers said...

I think the level of courtesy here discussing a subject that traditionally pops the veins on people's necks is extremely telling, and I thank you all for your reasonable contribution in a likely never ending debate.

I think it is also reasonable for people to evolve or change their thinking on things. When I was young, I thought I was pro-choice... then again, when I was really young I was a juvenile delinquent... it wasn't until I saw my eldest on the sonogram that I had a change of heart and mind...

Each of us gets where we do intellectually through our own experiences, me thinks, and we are all entitled to be human, to be wrong, and to make it right... as best we can...

Thank you!

Stephen B. said...

Shock Graphics Show Severity of Proposed Obama Budget Cuts

Don't die laughing at that link (or of disgust either.)

Anonymous said...


That chart is truly scary; although I’m sure the less than numerate crowd is relieved. A matter of perspective I reckon.